G.R. No.

193036REP. EDCEL C. LAGMAN, REP. RODOLFO B. ALBANO, JR., REP. SIMEON A.DATUMANONG, and REP. ORLANDO B. FUA, SR.vs.EXECUTIVE SECRETARY PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR. and DEPARTMENT OF BUDGETAND MANAGEMENT SECRETARY FLORENCIO B. ABADFACTS:To transform his campaign slogan, Kung walang corrupt, walangmahirap, the President, Benigno Simeon Aquino III, at the dawn of hisadministration, signed on July 30, 2010 an Executive Order No. 1 establishingthe Philippine Truth Commission of 2010 (Truth Commission).The Philippine Truth Commission composed of a Chairman and four (4)members shall act as independent collegial body, and shall have all the powersof an investigative body under Section 37, Chapter 9, Book I of theAdministrative Code of 1987. The Commissions primary task is to conduct athorough fact-finding investigation of reported cases of graft and corruption,involving third level public officers and higher, their co-principals, accomplicesand accessories from the private sector, if any, during the previousadministration and thereafter submit its findings and recommendations to thePresident, Congress, and the Ombudsman. The Commission is not a quasi-judicialbody as it cannot adjudicate, arbitrate, resolve, settle, or render awards indisputes between contending parties.Not long after the issuance of Executive Order No. 1, two petitions werefiled with the Supreme Court. The first case, G.R. No. 192395, is a special civilaction for prohibition instituted by petitioner Louis Barok C. Biraogo, in hiscapacity as a citizen and taxpayer. Birago assails Executive Order No. 1 for beingviolative of the legislative power of Congress under Article VI, Section 1, of theConstitution as it usurps the constitutional authority of the legislative to create apublic office and to appropriate funds thereof. The second case, G.R.No.193036, is a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition filed bypetitioners-legislators, Edcel C. Lagman, Rodolfo B. Albano Jr., SimeonA. Datumanong, and Orlando B. Fua, Sr. as incumbent members of theHouse of Representatives, questioning the legality of the creation ofthe Truth Commission since the creation of a public office lies within theprovince of Congress and not with the executive branch of government.The Office of the Solicitor General questioned the legal standing of thepetitioners-legislators to assail Executive Order No. 1. The OSG argued that thepetitioners-legislators have not shown that they have sustained or are in dangerof sustaining any personal injury attributable to the creation of the Commission.Not claiming to be the subject of the commissions investigation, petitioners willnot sustain injury in its creation or as a result of its proceedings.ISSUE:1. Whether or not the essential requisites for judicial review are present inorder for the court to validly exercise its power of judicial review.HELD:The Philippine Supreme Court, according to Article VIII, Section 1 of the1987 Constitution, is vested with the Judicial Power that includes the duty of thecourts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally

demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been agrave of abuse of discretion amounting to lack of excess of jurisdiction on thepart of any branch or instrumentality of the government.However, like almost all powers conferred by the Constitution, the powerof Judicial Review is subject to limitations, to wit: (1) there must be an actualcase or controversy calling for the exercise of judicial power; (2) the personchallenging the act must have a personal and substantial interest in the casesuch that he has sustained, or will sustain, direct injury as a result of itsenforcement; (3) the question of constitutionality must be raised at the earliestpossible opportunity; and (4) the issue of constitutionality must be the very lismota of the case.Among all these limitations, only the legal standing of the petitioners hasbeen put at issue. The court confirmed that the petitioner-legislators had therequisite standing to challenge Executive Order No. 1 as they are allowed toquestion the validity of any official action which, to their mind, infringes on theirprerogatives as legislators. Evidently, the petition primarily invokes usurpationof the power of the Congress as a body to which they belong as members. Thiscertainly justifies their resolve to take the cudgels for Congress as an institutionand present the complaints on the usurpation of their power and rights asmembers of the legislature before the Court.